Acts20.com

DACA was the product of unrestrained executive power. Congress wouldn't do what President Obama wanted, so he just did it anyway, Constitutional authority and separation of powers be damned.At the time, I warned many a liberal friend that their party would not always be in the White House, and that it was a really bad idea to support that means even though they did support the end.As the populist authoritarian at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue announces today his backup plan of using executive power to declare a national emergency and build the wall without Congressional appropriation -- a move that will necessarily involve the seizure of private lands, at the point of a gun for those who resist -- I now warn the Trump supporters here of the same.I support the construction of a physical barrier along the entire southern border. But not at the expense of constitutional governance. If you sit idly by while President Trump continues the tradition of executive shredding of the Constitution, you will one day come to regret it, as many DACA supporters are lamenting the existence of a pen and a phone today. Your party will not always be in power. Presidents acting without the restraint of law will not always be doing what you want.Principles matter. Even when you support the end result. Especially when you support the end result.

In the first place, this

There is no one as blind as he who will not see.If you support this -- that's fine. That's your right. But I hope I never see you posting here about the constitution again, since you apparently believe the rule of law is just a helpful suggestion.

Again, there is very little, if any, that you can truly cite from Trump's record as being authoritarian. Protecting the country from foreign invasion is the President's job. It seems you really do not take this seriously

As a final plea, imagine the worst policy you believe could ever be implemented, then imagine a future president implementing it without Congressional approval using the precedent that GWB, Obama, and now Trump are establishing and following.

RS, I'm beginning to think you really do not understand the constitution at all.Please cite to me the clause in the constitution that empowers the president to directly enact policy concerning immigration -- in any context -- much less in a specific way, over the objection and without the appropriation of Congress.As a hint, you might want to look at Article I, Section 8, where you will find the only clause in the Constitution that mentions immigration policy.

RS, I'm beginning to think you really do not understand the constitution at all.Please cite to me the clause in the constitution that empowers the president to directly enact policy concerning immigration -- in any context -- much less in a specific way, over the objection and without the appropriation of Congress.As a hint, you might want to look at Article I, Section 8, where you will find the only clause in the Constitution that mentions immigration policy.Serious question -- without looking it up -- do you know what Article I does? This has gone beyond an immigration problem. This is an invasion. I take it you do believe the Constitution gives the Commander-in-Chief the power to halt invasions. Whether Congress allocates the funds, or Trump invokes his powers as Commander-in-Chief, a wall is not going to suddenly appear. It will take time, planning and dealing with land owners. You are simply grasping at anti-Trump straws

If it's an invasion, where in the Constitution would I find an enumeration of war powers?

I am beginning to think you don't know much about our southern border. Even Trump knows a border on every single mile is not possible or necessary. One thing I have considered and wondered is why we simply don't have an agent stationed every mile? They could have night vision, arms and the means to call in more man power at a moment's notice. If a group of refugees massed at a certain point, at least two agents would see them coming from miles way and radio in a guard force. Two or three choppers loaded with agents thundering in would be quite a deterrent to refugees

Repelling invasion does not require a declaration of war